About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
was the first president to make humans rights a cornerstone of u.s. foreign policy. tell me about your conversation with president carter. >> one of the things that interested me, he was--what he said about impunity, where he said that he varied a bit from more pure rights activists. he said he wasn't necessarily opposed to giving wretched dictators impunity if it meant that they would step down sooner. they were afraid of being prosecuted by the international criminal court, and because of that they're not willing to give up. they stay and they fight. but if you gave them impunity, and you were not going to prosecute them, they might be willing to step down sooner and save more people sooner. >> michael: it's a cut your loses type of a policy. >> yes more practical. >> michael: it seems that way. let's move to representative john lewis. he's a really spiritual man. how were you able to capture this through your photography? >> i think he simply gave it to me. we had a wonderful conversation first. i interviewed him for the text that accompanies each photograph then we went outside his
them use versal rights. yet, promoting human rights isn't a foreign policy. it is not a foreign policy priority because it is the right thing to do. it's tied to our own security. it is tied to the possibilities of prosperity an nations living by rule of law and of nations living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail are countries where people do better. economies thrive, rule of law are stronger, governments are more effective and they are countries that leade wod stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't just an indicator that a country is doing well, it unleashes a country's potential and helps to advance growth and progress. i ask you to think of a country like berma for a minute. cause of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections a country that has been isolated for years is now making progress. has it reach wrd we want it to be? no but it is on the road and it is moving. more people are participating it ding to faster growth and development. by starting to embrace universal rights the bermes
with u.s. foreign policy by including them in the program? >> yes, but i am not in favor of waiting standards to do it. been whatndard has you described, which is a 3% rejection rate. some countries go slightly beyond that because there is not the uniform standard applied by embassies throughout the world. some embassies have more liberal policy with regard to applications. instead of outsourcing decision making, would you like to see in touch with regards to diplomatic and security and economic considerations? >> i would have to review that. there are several established criteria and the act with respect to the current standards. the government provides a reciprocal visa waivers. the government issues secure machine readable passports. the government certifies the program to incorporate biometric identification into their passports. the government reports the thefts of blank passports. that they maintained a low immigrant refusal rate. that they maintain less than 2% projection for travel for non- immigrant applicants. those are the standards and the current law. you guys have the
families have skin in the game of foreign policy, but if you don't a son or daughter in uniform, husband or wife in uniform, where is your skin in that game when you're not paying for those decisions? and when we make decisions that we don't have to pay for, we make bad decisions. i agree with the president. folks need to pay their fair share. i think we all need to have some skin in the game. folks who make more ought to pay more. folks who make less ought to pay less. but we are all members of the board of directors of the united states of america, mr. speaker. all 320 million of us sit on the board of directors of the united states of america, and yet you ought to have skin in the game when you are making decisions about high this organization runs. how do we create revenue? how do we reduce deficits? how do we make sure folks are paying their fair share? the good news is, mr. speaker, the president's aware of the fair tax. i am not willing to call him a fair tax president. i don't think the president's quite onboard, we are not going to wait on the president to be onboard. we are goi
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5